from the nast-y dept
Conde Nast has proven itself to be heavy-handed in the previous in relation to IP legal guidelines. And like some other giant writer, Conde Nast makes a behavior of policing its IP, together with its emblems. However whenever you do this policing, you actually do need to decide to not less than having the naked minimal of frequent sense, or else you look actually, actually silly.
, like when Conde Nast despatched a risk letter to The Star Inn at Vogue, a pub within the UK in a small village referred to as Vogue, all as a result of Conde Nast additionally operates a little bit journal you could have heard of referred to as Vogue.
The Star Inn at Vogue, considered not less than 150 years outdated, is within the small village of Vogue, close to Redruth. Vogue journal writer Condé Nast instructed the pub its title may “trigger issues”.
The letter demanded to know the character of the pub’s enterprise (actually?) and whether or not the pub can be open to altering the title it’s had for 150 years. Mark Graham, of the pub, has principally laughed all this off. Actually, he responded to Conde Nast with a letter of his personal.
Mark Graham, who has been landlord together with his spouse Rachel for 17 years, wrote again, saying: “While I discovered your letter fascinating on the one hand, I additionally discovered it hilariously humorous on the opposite.”
“I defined to them that the village has been right here for 200 years, the pub barely lower than that. We selected the title of the pub to be the title of the village.”
He mentioned he was had thought-about countering their declare over the usage of the phrase as a result of “we have been there first”.
Now, to its credit score, Conde Nast has since responded to Graham indicating that it was “grateful” for his reply, pleased to study extra concerning the Inn and the encircling “a part of the nation” (mmkay), and that after “additional analysis” that Conde Nast most likely by no means ought to have despatched the risk letter to start with.
And that’s actually the issue right here. Conde Nast is free to police its emblems all it desires, nevertheless it ought to most likely be completed with not less than a modicum of professionalism. Possibly the ten minutes value of analysis it might take to know to not ship the threats might have been carried out earlier than the threats have been despatched, reasonably than afterwards.
However, hey, I assume it’s simpler to simply shoot first and ask questions later.